Obama’s oil buddies

Anyone with a car knows the financial pain of having to fill their gas tanks. The cost of gasoline has been rising for what seems to be forever. I remember when gas prices were high like this some time back when George W. Bush was president. It was said that the cost of oil and gasoline were being raised, or at least being tolerated by the Bush administration because he was taking care of his oil buddies. Well, Obama’s at it too: taking care of his oil buddies, that is.

(CNS News) — The average price of a gallon of gas has increased 96 percent since President Barack Obama first took office in 2009, according to figures from the Energy Information Agency (EIA).

According to EIA data, the average price of a gallon of regular unleaded gasoline in the United States was $1.838 on Jan. 19, 2009–the day before Obama took office. As of Monday, Feb. 11, 2013, the per-gallon price had risen to an average of $3.611–an increase of 96 percent.

The $3.677 is not the highest gas prices have been under President Obama. That record was reached the week of May 9, 2011 when they averaged $3.965 per gallon.

Comments

$3.966 per gallon a pain? Then it would be a heart attack for you here.
Today I have paid about US $7,032 per gallon of diesel which is the cheapest fuel.
For 95 octane gasonile it would have been about US $8.007.per gallon.

Two things, first, our economy isn’t structured to handle European gas prices. Our country would literally come to a screeching halt if that happened over night. Secondly, our country isn’t set up like Europe for the mass transit either. Sure in many places it is, but the majority of the country is inaccessible via anything other than personal vehicle.

I agree that your economy isn’t structured to handle our prices. We have had a high taxation on gas for many years. But a sharp price increase also means an economic blow. I would have paid 40% less four years ago, but I guess this rise is mainly due to oil price increase.

I don’t have data enough to compare mass transist use. Anyway, it’s clear that you won’t use public vehicles having cheap fuel which makes cost effectiveness of personal vehicles overwhelming.

You also need to factor in that fact that, at least in the US, public transportation is subsidized by taxpayers to the point that the real cost is masked for those who use it. So any attempt to make a comparison must factor in that subsidy.

It would also be interesting to take a look at P-BO’s donors and see how much he get’s from “big oil” or “big coal”. I’d suspect it’s a lot more than his supporters would be comfortable with.

Isu,
In the states public transportation is also subsidized. The difference is, that the subsidy is hidden, and the amount of the projected subsidy is lied about in order to gain support. In theory, I have no problem with public subsidy of buses or light rail, as long as those who support it are honest and upfront about the amount and nature of the subsidy. When public officials commit billions of dollars to these projects based on misleading projections, it becomes a serious problem.

As far as big oil/coal donors, I’d agree with you to a point. I’d guess it varies depending on which side the lobbyists think will win. However, P-BO and his supporters have made a point of demonizing the oil companies, and enacting regulations/legislation to slow down the production of carbon based fuels. So, I see it as more than slightly unseemly to lead your supporters to believe that you agree with their anti-oil stance, while taking money from the oil companies. Not that the democrat party is unfamiliar with unseemly tactics.

For example, the P-BO administration is attempting to blame the coming sequestration on the GOP, when Bob Woodward (a left leaning journalist if there ever was one), is quite clear that this plan came from the White House. Not surprising, just unseemly.

Religious, political, and social commentary through the filter of a conservative Christian worldview. I focus on addressing why critic's arguments against my views fail rather than the traditional positive case-making for the Christian worldview.